I wrote an article about the bill

[Wynton]

I'm somewhat hesitant to mention this here, but I wrote an article summarizing the bill.

A great deal of the observations in the article have already been mentioned in various threads here. And it is really addressed to people with basic questions about the legislation. But in case anyone is interested, it can be found here. (http://www.internettexasholdem.com/poker-columnists/other-articles/dealing-with-the-unlawful-internet-gambling-enforcement-act/)

[Uglyowl]

Good well written article, I enjoyed reading it.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Dude, can we just make this the FAQ for this forum?

[Berge20]

nh

was about to write up a big faq, but this covers a lot of it

[webmonarch]

Nice read.

Like you, I have yet to be convinced that there will be any effective enforcement. Furthermore, I think that any enforcement that will actually be imposed will easily be overridden by those who want to override it (proxies, etc.)

The bigger question, as you note, is how the ISPs and banks are affected. If they all cooperate easily, I think there will be a "scare effect" that will be more limiting than actual enforcment provisions.

Also, I agree that there is little room for a real challenge here. However, I'll be honest when I say that I'd like to try it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[killa4s]

[ QUOTE ]

The bigger question, as you note, is how the ...banks are affected. If they all cooperate easily, I think there will be a "scare effect" that will be more limiting than actual enforcment provisions.


[/ QUOTE ]Understand this: A bank will not jeopardize their ability to conduct electronic commerce transactions for the majority of their clientele just because they want to make a few (relatively speaking) poker players happy. Even if they did want to, their is something in the banking industry called "reputational risk." None of them will want a black cloud hanging over their head from this thing should it become law. Trust me, I wish it weren't so, but it is.

[webmonarch]

Perhaps, but equally compelling is the financial industries' interest in not rolling over every time the government wants to interfere with their day-to-day operations.

Again, I think this is a question to be answered. You may be right at how easy they comply, but I don't think it will be as simple as sending a letter.

[killa4s]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but equally compelling is the financial industries' interest in not rolling over every time the government wants to interfere with their day-to-day operations.

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed. And, for what it's worth - the majority of banks, while they might be neutral on the surface, probably like the business - so long as it doesn't cause issues with their other interests, which happen to outweigh revenues from internet gaming related transactions.

[redbeard]

great article wynton. i don't know what else to say. the one thing that stood out to me that i did not know was that the u.s. government has the authority over foreign companies such as neteller to force them to quit doing business with online gambling sites. i assume neteller would be faced with the choice of continuing to do business with gambling sites and not with u.s. citizens or continuing to do business with u.s. citizens for other transactions and dropping their affiliation with gambling sites. if they force them out of the internet gambling business how do you speculate we as players will be able to fund our online poker accounts. will we have to get swiss bank accounts to fund them? and will there be any point if none of the fish can fund their own accounts.